[Talk-us] Proposal: delete census-designated place polygons
ezekielf at gmail.com
Sun Nov 14 14:31:28 GMT 2010
In my area some of the CDP boundaries do correspond to official
administrative boundaries, and others do not. Deleting them all statewide
would remove some good data. The data is good though, and the ones that
aren't real boundaries usually are real places. For example there are
several boundaries around small villages. The name of the village is
correct and the size of the polygon is accurate, but there is no official
boundary between said village and the surrounding township. They are
governed by one body. In these cases I'm thinking of removing the boundary
tags and just leaving place=village maybe with landuse=residential.
As for your proposal about Florida, Nathan, I think you should go ahead and
remove any polygons you know to be totally bogus. I imagine there are some
that belong as places, just not as boundaries, though.
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Val Kartchner <val42k at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 02:24 -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Daniel Sabo <danielsabo at gmail.com>
> > > The problem comes from the fact that the trailer park was a "hamlet"
> inside of a "city", but then there are legitimate cases for nesting like
> that, and there's no way for Nominatim to tell the difference if there are
> only nodes.
> > place=hamlet is misleading for a trailer park. If it's inside a city,
> > it's probably best to use place=neighborhood.
> I'd like to use "place=neighborhood" as well. Can we get a consensus to
> make this addition? This should be doable as a point because these
> developments, if they do have a sign, don't usually have a map
> designating the boundaries. One would have to get the government
> documents to find out such boundaries.
> - Val -
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us